4 ms·
The trusted 3rd party could be maintaining a blockchain. Blockchains don't have to be decentralized, they're just a type of db that can be decentralized.
by jon_richards 8y ago
The trusted 3rd party could be maintaining a blockchain. Blockchains don't have to be decentralized, they're just a type of db that can be decentralized.
- gm-conspiracy 8y agoYou can do proof-of-work without a blockchain and have a trusted 3rd-party entity, like hashcash... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash
- PKop 8y agoThat produces a currency though, which would be the reward for the work. What is the reward for doing such proof of work in the context of custody chains?
- gm-conspiracy 8y agoI am assuming the value of the custody chain as a whole and its constituents. If intellectual property has value, then a hash of a particular work product could be used in a chain-of-custody for ownership of IP (transfers, licensing, etc). But, yes, if it is just for virtual kittens and their accessories, I am at a loss. Otherwise, why are you wasting compute, right?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- simonw 8y agoDo you mean the trusted third party could be maintaining a GitHub repository?
- gaius 8y agoA blockchain controlled by a single entity is just a really crappy database
- perl4ever 8y agoIf you don't need a decentralized solution why does it have to be a blockchain and not an Excel spreadsheet?